Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:51 pm Is there any member of Congress more punchable than Matt Gaetz?

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:27 pm They should have asked him who he voted for and then claim political bias. It has to work both ways, right?

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:20 pm When Trump is acquitted in the Senate, prepare for a scorched earth no-holds-barred attack on the Democratic frontrunner like you've never seen. Trump will feel (and be) invincible, and there will be absolutely no downside to soliciting every foreign adversary in the world to campaign, digmake up dirt in exchange for favors, and meddle on his behalf.

The 2020 election will absolutely be rigged in his favor on multiple levels. October surprise? Plan for a surprise every month, whether it's true or not.

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:49 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:27 pm They should have asked him who he voted for and then claim political bias. It has to work both ways, right?

This is the stupidity of the Republicans. Based upon this, every Republican congressman should recuse his or her self assuming they voted for Trump. The given assumption if that professionals cannot put aside any personal bias in rendering expert testimony. Maybe they don't realize that everyone isn't as corrupt as they are.

Remus West wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:52 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:20 pm When Trump is acquitted in the Senate, prepare for a scorched earth no-holds-barred attack on the Democratic frontrunner like you've never seen. Trump will feel (and be) invincible, and there will be absolutely no downside to soliciting every foreign adversary in the world and corrupting domestic agencies to campaign, digmake up dirt in exchange for favors, and meddle on his behalf.

The 2020 election will absolutely be rigged in his favor on multiple levels. October surprise? Plan for a surprise every month, whether it's true or not.

FTFY

For those thinking we are not headed towards autocracy look no further than Moscow Mitch enabling tRump.

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:51 pm Is there any member of Congress more punchable than Matt Gaetz?

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:37 pm I'm sure people have seen the "Barron not a baron" controversy.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:37 pm Even Melania emerged from her sinister Christmas Palace to tweet her pain and outrage. Presumably she cares a great deal about the feelings of young people who aren't being victimized by her husband.

Similarly, thousands of people tweeted using the #FakeOutrage hashtag, noting that the First Lady did not comment about President Trump verbally attacking 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:37 pm Even Melania emerged from her sinister Christmas Palace...

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:00 pm His story would change if he were put under oath.

El Guapo wrote:

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:00 pm His story would change if he were put under oath.

Why do you think that?

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:31 am

El Guapo wrote:

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:00 pm His story would change if he were put under oath.

Why do you think that?

Because I think he's lying. Just pretend that there are recordings and he'll fold.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:31 pm The GOP members just put up a poster featuring Schiff's face on a milk carton. They're apparently miffed that he won't be attending the proceedings today.

It's amazing to me how much Trump has molded the GOP into his own image in such a short time. I honestly thought there would have been some kickback against going full on dishonest, substituting showmanship for integrity. But that's not the case. They've apparently embraced Emperor Orange-intine's blatant disregard for honesty and decorum. McCain was probably the last one that stood in the way of this happening. Without him, the GOP had no backbone or reason to resist.

Attorney General William P. Barr recently approved making public new details about a former F.B.I. informant at the heart of conservatives’ allegations about the Russia investigation, deciding to release information that had been blacked out in a highly anticipated inspector general’s report due out on Monday.

A representative from the office of the Justice Department inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, told the former F.B.I. informant, Christopher Steele, on Sunday that the Justice Department had decided to allow for the release of the information, two people briefed on the situation said late on Sunday.

Mr. Steele was given no details about the information itself, nor was he told how it would affect the report’s portrayal of him, the people said.
...
The notice to Mr. Steele on the eve of the report’s release was highly unusual. Like the other witnesses interviewed for the inspector general’s report, Mr. Steele had earlier reviewed the findings that are pertinent to him, and he was given a chance to comment on them. In this case, Mr. Horowitz’s office did not detail for him the additional information and gave him no opportunity to respond for the report to be released on Monday.

For two years, the president of the United States and his followers have loudly declared that the FBI acted unlawfully in conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
...
On Monday, we learned from a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, that the allegation of a criminal conspiracy was nonsense. There was no illegal wiretapping, there were no informants inserted into the campaign, there was no “spying” on the Trump campaign.
...
The Russia investigation was complicated — not surprisingly, the inspector general found mistakes, 17 of them, things the FBI should have done differently, or better. That’s always unfortunate, but human beings make mistakes. Inspector-general reports are valuable because they offer the chance to learn. Horowitz also concluded that a low-level FBI lawyer doctored an email as part of the administrative process leading to the renewal of the application for electronic surveillance of the former campaign adviser. Although it is not clear what difference that made, it is still potentially serious wrongdoing and does not reflect the FBI culture of compliance and candor.

But most important, Horowitz’s report found that the investigation was opened and conducted under the rules, finding no “evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced [the] decision” to start it or how to run it. Those of us who knew that truth had to remain silent while a torrent of smears and falsehoods flowed from the White House, from some congressional committee chairmen, the attorney general and Fox News personalities. The FBI’s work was perceived as a threat to the president, and many Republicans apparently believe that all threats to Trump must be destroyed, no matter the cost to the nation.
...
Well, the wait is over, and those who smeared the FBI are due for an accounting. In particular, Attorney General William P. Barr owes the institution he leads, and the American people, an acknowledgment of the truth.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:36 pm Apparently the information about Steele is that he had a "relationship"* with Ivanka. Kind of blows out of the water the GOP talking point that Steele was trying to bring down the Trumps.


*Friendly, not necessarily (but not not necessarily) sexual.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:11 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:36 pm Apparently the information about Steele is that he had a "relationship"* with Ivanka. Kind of blows out of the water the GOP talking point that Steele was trying to bring down the Trumps.


*Friendly, not necessarily (but not not necessarily) sexual.

Are they going to try to sell Steele as like some kind of seductive spy who infiltrated Trump's inner circle to try to bring him down, or something?

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:16 pm His last name is in the report over 2,500 times. Hers is not in there once.